Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

Quote:

In the gun debate, I've discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I've often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we've got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

Quote:

Liberals always make the common plea, “We need to get some experts to solve this problem!” for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner — people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they’ve seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn’t stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner.

How can we “gun people” honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

Read the column. Then come back and let's discuss it. Be warned... this is my thread and I won't tolerate any name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or other untoward behavior from either side. I'll delete them as fast as I see them, and if anybody sees something that fits those characteristics, bring it to my attention and I'll take care of it.

I want this to be an honest, civil discussion on what has to happen to let all of us Americans come together and realize that we're all in this together. We all have our viewpoints, and we need to understand what the issues actually are before we can actually try to legislate solutions.

From what I've seen here, the answer is sometimes. But when people run out of facts and tactics, they resort to low blows. Or when people want to ignore facts and tactics, they resort to low blows. People keep things civil when they want to keep things civil. But sometimes being civil reveals things you don't want revealed, so of course people resort to being rude just to distract away from the subject at hand. I find it entertaining, if nothing else.

24 "Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because" followed by 24 broad-brush statements about 'antigunners'. That piece isn't designed to foment discussion, it's meant to shut down the perceived opposition. It's no way to start people coming together. Have a nice time in your thread.

Quote:

[Antigunners] don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.

Very reasonable terms, Mr. N. I saw you in the other thread that I quickly left. I had no idea that you were so pro-gun or that you had a gun blog. Coincidentally, I read that thread the night of or the next one after I had come back from the annual NRA banquet. Unfortunately, I believe that there are a few very vocal, and emotional, people on this site with whom you can not be rational. Part of that stemming from the mindset, part from the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory.

I believe the solution cannot come from any 'table' or greater discussion on any higher level than a small group setting. A bunch of people at dinner, getting together to discuss what they really believe and why, where facts must be backed up. It will not come from a soundbite on television, where two heads speak words back and forth for five minutes, or from the president getting behind his podium and reading from a teleprompter. In most of those cases, the loudest ones 'win' the argument, when there even is one. One of the major problems is that there are so many uninformed people who only listen to the voices from sources that they agree with, such as a few of the major news networks. They only hear ''everyone agrees that X is bad'' and follow like sheep.

I have had much better luck talking to people in person, and I think I've done some good. I spoke today with a salesman at Macy's about him getting a CCW. I've talked to other people around town about guns, usually because I'm open-carrying, and we typically leave each other on good terms. I believe I've set a number of people on the right path, looking for fact instead of hype. But here on Lush... When you have some people who don't know the basic difference between Arms and Ordinance and ignore the most basic truths that oppose their fear-driven philosophy...

quite honestly, after reading the entire editorial, what i got out of it was: gun owner's don't trust anti-gun people because they're: and then a list that could be diluted down into a series of adjectives - naive, stupid, liars, uneducated, uninformed, deceitful, untrustworthy, stubborn, rude, etc. how this is supposed to bring me as someone on the "anti-gun" side to the table, i have no idea.

this particularly made me roll my eyes:

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

so, is the point of this that bombs should be legal as long as they're not used to blow people up? go ahead, you can have all the bombs you want, just make sure you use them at the bomb range or for hunting, not for blowing limbs off of people at marathons, etc. Live, love, laugh.

24 "Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because" followed by 24 broad-brush statements about 'antigunners'. That piece isn't designed to foment discussion, it's meant to shut down the perceived opposition. It's no way to start people coming together. Have a nice time in your thread.

The irony is almost overwhelming.

I agree. The author of this article shows the same belittling of "anti-gun people", and note that he gives everyone who is for more restrictions on weapons the same label, of being intolerant and not wanting to listen, while in fact this article is not someone who wants to bring on a debate or get someone to the table. I more picture the writer of this article as someone standing with their AR-15 and shouting out "You'll take this from my cold dead hands!" behind his "trespassers will be shot" sign.

For there to even be negotiations is that both sides should put a sock in their own extremes, the NRA nutters that tries to blame everything on video games(strange that the US is the only country with video games that have mass shootings of this extent) and the anti-gun people who goes "You own a gun! YOU'RE A KILLER!" (yes, I kill deer to eat. I also own a fishing rod).

A couple of things I wanna point out though; one was when he linked to the Chicago vs Houston murder rate. Houston has 2/3 of the murder rate as Chicago and they say gun control is the only issue. If you seriously believe that cities on different sides of the country have only one difference from one city being a death valley while the other is not so much, then you're a fucking idiot.

As for the one Sprite mentioned, does that mean that in the US I can go buy some C4 at a store, or maybe a couple of landmines and say it's for my own protection?

But one thing I for the life of me can't seem to understand is this; how can it be that people really believe that a modern America will go under into a tyrannic dictatorship if the 2nd ammendment went poof? The 2nd Ammendment was made for a new nation, not the nation with the most powerful military as well as having the whole god damn NATO with them should it be needed. Besides, who says you need guns to change a nation? How many of the Eastern European countries took up arms against the Soviet Union when they liberated themselves from communist rule? If America really believes that guns is the only way to bring about change, then I weep for America. "It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

Only a "must read" if you want to become more entrenched on one side of the "debate" or the other.

I was hoping for something balanced and informative - all I read was foaming-at-the-mouth, paranoid, conservatism. I could list all of his logical fallacies, straw man arguments and basic name calling that already blight this so-called debate but what would be the point?

Quote:

There must first be respect and trust — even just a little — before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue.

I see none of it from him.

My previous observation that you could read any pro-gun article and replace the word "gun" with "testicles" still holds true.Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Pardon my ignorance but as I understand it the gun laws of the US are such that you can have a gun at home without needing any special permit so that you can defend yourself from an intruder but do need a permit to wander about the streets carrying one. Do the majority of gun owners have such permits as most of the incidents about self defence quoted during this debate concern attackers in any location? if they don't then all the rhetoric about the right to carry such things is merely academic as it sounds to me that if a situation arose where someone used a gun on the street to defend themselves most would be breaking the law despite the danger they were in?

Pardon my ignorance but as I understand it the gun laws of the US are such that you can have a gun at home without needing any special permit so that you can defend yourself from an intruder but do need a permit to wander about the streets carrying one. Do the majority of gun owners have such permits as most of the incidents about self defence quoted during this debate concern attackers in any location? if they don't then all the rhetoric about the right to carry such things is merely academic as it sounds to me that if a situation arose where someone used a gun on the street to defend themselves most would be breaking the law despite the danger they were in?

This all depends on where you live in the US. There are some very anti-gun states and some very pro-gun states. Some state will allow you to carry with out any permit, some states make it so hard to get one that its not worth the effort and some don't allow it at all. I am very pro gun myself and just about everyone I know is as well.

This all depends on where you live in the US. There are some very anti-gun states and some very pro-gun states. Some state will allow you to carry with out any permit, some states make it so hard to get one that its not worth the effort and some don't allow it at all. I am very pro gun myself and just about everyone I know is as well.

Without any permit????? No wonder this is such a hot issue that is insane!!!!!

The debate isn't really between gun people and anti-gun people. Not everyone who wants common sense regulation of firearms, sensible background checks, and a stop to marketing guns to children is anti-gun. There is no serious anti-gun movement in the United States. People who want to ban guns entirely are a small minority. On the other hand, people who want unlimited access to weapons with no regulations whatsoever are also a small minority.

The extremist in the pro gun movement are giving people the impression that all gun owners are crazed right wing extremists who want to stockpile guns and ammo to kill the forces of government tyranny. Most people who own a gun, or want to own one, are responsible, sober citizens. They are not opposed to background checks or regulations that make gun ownership and use safer. The people who claim the right to own and use rocket launchers and machine guns, on the other hand, are dangerous. It isn't responsible behaviour to want to own those things.

The virulent anti-gun people who insist that the second amendment refers only to militia members having guns, and that private ownership of guns should be illegal, are also doing a disservice to their cause. People who want to limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold, or prohibit ownership of guns that are manufactured only to kill other human beings, aren't trying to take guns away though. Most of us don't want gun bans. Not wanting my neighbour to have a machine gun, or to be able to buy magazines that hold a hundred rounds, isn't the same as wanting guns banned. That is what the NRA argues that we want. The agenda of the NRA is the agenda of the gun manufactures.

They want to be make and sell whatever they want, no matter what the cost to society.

"According to an October 2012 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rate of serious violent crime declined 75 percent between 1993 and 2011, meaning that gun homicides are declining at a slower pace than overall crime."

The rate of gunshot wounds that required hospitalization increased between 2001 and 2011. According to the Wall Street Journal, which is not widely considered a liberal propaganda tool, "Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centers--which specialize in treating severe injuries--the increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan."

More people are getting shot, it's just that fewer are dying, not because of an increase in gun safety, but because there are improvements in treating wounds.

Gun deaths did decrease from 1993 to 2000 during a time when there were growing numbers of restrictions on assault weapons and general decline in the number of households owning guns, but it has been climbing since. It's estimated that gun deaths will exceed auto deaths by 2015.

Oh boy. Well, first of all, thanks NP for posting this. It's not the even-handed piece I was hoping for, and I know by the prior comments that I'm not alone with those feelings, but it does give us plenty to chew on. I was going to leave a general comment, but it's just going to work out better for me to address some things point-by-point.

-

Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don’t think so; at least, I think I’m pretty normal. Sure, we’ve got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does.

But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too — people so normal that nobody knows they’re gun people until they’re told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip.

That is to say, there’s a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to.I've no doubt that this is true. I know lots of gun owners, and I'm sure I know many more than that and just don't know it. I used to be a gun owner. I know gun owner does not equal "gun-nut". The problem is largely a PR one, as I've mentioned. Some, like SWW suggest that this is on purpose: get the crazy ones out, loud and proud, while the grown-ups secure gun rights behind the scenes. I'm not sure this is true, though I'm not certain it's not, either. What I do know is that the NRA can be unnecessarily provocative, at least from my perspective, and that among those looking to secure their rights to own guns, there's an awful lot of fear, and fear in turn sows other unpleasant attributes, such parnoia, intolerance, and hostility.

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

And without first accepting that guns are good, and a cherished perennial right, not to be infringed by anyone for any reason, those seeking tighter controls can't get a word in edgewise, either. See how that works? This is why the prospects for real conversation are so bleak.

You might think that’s hyperbole too, but I’ve experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register’s own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere.

Let's be fair, nobody's forcing Skynrdfan68@gmail.com to upload his pro-gun rant to YouTube. Nobody's rounding up small town residents who hate Obama and forcing them to expound on their belief system and their interpretation of the US Constitution. I'll say it again: gun advocates have perhaps the worlds worst spokespeople and overall public front. Look at what happens here even here on the relatively small community of Lush. The typical gun advocate is: 1) shirtless in his avatar, 2) angry right off the bat at everyone, 3) uses woefully poor grammar, and 4) at some point either slips into hate speech, compares the US government to the Third Reich, or both. I realize that we may be living in a style-over-substance culture, and that's probably to our detriment, but one has to admit: presentation and marketing of opinions matters a great deal. If you can't sell your ideas and make both the idea and the messenger seem sane, you're dead in the water.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America.

It's not the only thing that matters, but it does matter a hell of a lot. Here's guessing that this same author would definitely slip a "65% of Americans believe in a balanced budget" stat into his column in the (all too common) event that Congress and the President decide to spend lavishly and fail to address the deficit problem. We don't live in a black and white world, and absolutes rarely factor in. It's disingenuous to say that majority opinion- representing the way most Americans feel- is irrelevant to a particular issue. Should it rule the day? Perhaps not, but it does warrant mentioning.

We don’t trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it’s actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America.

Thanks for the constitutional lesson, Mr. High Horse. It doesn't really matter here, except to brandish your credentials. Not using correct semantic nomenclature is a disqualifier? Whatever you say, cowboy.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won’t tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that.

Nothing Obama proposed presents a challenge to ownership of firearms. If one is absolutist about it (and that's increasingly the way people on both sides are getting), then I guess anything other than "go get all the guns you want, restriction-free" is 'tampering with the Second Amendment'. Otherwise, his comment here is intellectually dishonest.

We don’t trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a “task force” to “solve” the so-called “gun problem,” who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task.

Fair point. One could argue that all points of view should be involved in a policy issue like this, though what do we expect the NRA to have done, other than vehemently oppose any restriction whatsoever, regardless of what it is?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don’t want to ban guns, only enact what they call “common sense gun laws.” But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere.

Very liberal use of the word 'they'. And what "common sense gun laws" is he referring to? Yes, Senator Feinstein said she's like to see all guns turned in (nice video find from 18 years ago, btw). I'd like to see lots of things happen, but even if I'm a US Senator, that doesn't make them likely to happen. You can't, if you're willing to have the intellectually honest discourse that you claim to seek, take one person's quote and turn that into "they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere." This guy, again, is seeking a white hat/black hat divide, where it's actually way, way more nuanced than that.

While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal — proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine. If it ain’t good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain’t good enough for us right now.

Yes, people will submit crazy shit at the state (and occasionally at the national) legislative level. It happens. And yes, the ByronLords of the world, that equate 'gun owner' with 'bloody-handed amoralist' exist too. But they're not the ones you have to worry about, much like those who seek tighter controls on guns don't really have to worry about fringe libertarians that want to overthrow the Federal government and impose anarchy. (Well, except for the occasional federal courthouse bombing, then maybe you do have to worry about those people).

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don’t trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don’t. We know because we know ourselves and we’re not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker.

Now he's all over the map. There are all kinds of people- most even- who have no issue with concealed-carry while wishing for better controls elsewhere. I don't personally buy that the movie theater gunman (for instance) would've been stopped faster if others had been packing. I fail to see how that wouldn't have just ended up with more stray bullets and bystanders struck by them...but that's neither here nor there.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and “saving children” is why they want to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime.

And I see merit in legislation that eliminates that 2 percent. Versus what, the legal right to own an Uzi? It's at least a worthwhile debate.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their “We need gun control to save the children” argument, many of us can’t understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I’m personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman’s individual rights.

Uh oh. God-Squad alert! And willfully bringing a completely unrelated issue (women's reproductive rights) into the fray. Win the argument on its own merits, not by slinging moralist mud re: your own bias about abortion.

Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense.

Which anti-gunners? This whole essay gets really straw-mannish. Who is he talking about, other than the personally constructed idiot-mass that opposes his vision of Second Amendment rights. By the way, the constitution is full of collective rights. The indivual rights ARE the collective rights.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns — a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don’t trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don’t count in the crime rate, but they’re held against us as if they do.

Okay, but for many, including me, whether it constitutes "crime" is sort of irrelevant. The facts are that guns were the instrument used. Don't misunderstand this as me building an argument to ban guns, but in point of fact, the 30,000 number (or whatever it happens to be) is a gun-related death number, crime or no crime.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don’t trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned — ridiculous “gun-free zones” which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings.

I've yet to hear a surviving mass-shooting perpetrator explain that he picked his target based on the fact that it was in a "gun free zone". The existence of gun free zones is ridiculous to him, same as the concept of school teachers packing heat is ridiculous to others. That's an ideological stalemate, and either side is free to ridicule the others' position, but it won't bring about a solution.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.”

If it's in reaction to an actual dumb redneck with a gun, then what does one expect? Context matters. Otherwise: straw-man argument.

We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even.

Straw man argument.

We don’t trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are “bitter” and “cling to our guns and religion.”

How does he know Obama was talking about him? If memory serves, Obama was discussing his difficulties with rural, working class white people, many of whom are bitter about the Federal Government and do cling to guns and religion. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words, but it's not inaccurate. If that applies to the author of this piece, then so be it.

One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves.

How naive is this guy? He doesn't know internet comment sections are little more than troll lairs? The fact that he's willing to use that as an exhibit of evidence does his credibility no favors.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

Yes, but guns aren't illegal. Key difference.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don’t trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists’ muskets and powder. Since the shot heard ‘round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don’t trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don’t understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions — or at least, ones of which they don’t personally approve.

Okay, this makes sense, except for the first part about completely ignoring what true conservatism is all about. As somebody that leans liberal, I can tell you that this isn't true. Liberals are well aware that conservatism is about preserving traditions and long-standing principles, they just don't believe that some of those traditions are necessary or relevant today.

We don’t trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don’t trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America’s modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other “undesirables.”

This is probably the best pro-gun argument, if only there were a movement to ban all guns, when there really isn't one afoot here in the US.

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government.

It's a joke to this guy, but not to the citizens of virtually every other first-world society, most of whom have somehow have managed to enter 2013 without being strangled under the hold of a tyrranical fascist government regime. But again, a full-scale ban on firearms isn't on the table. So why does every pro-gun argument/monologue/tirade assume that it is?

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don’t trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it’s not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don’t trust anti-gunners because they’re too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway.

Wrong. By leading the lobbying effort and by speaking for gun ownership, they represent gun ownership as a concept. And gun owners at large allow them to do so by maintaining membership and by not speaking out in opposition to them, or to discredit thir assertion that they're leading the Second Amendment defense in this country.

No, anti-gunners, we don’t trust you. And you’ve given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you’re sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars.People who choose not to carry or own guns do all of these things as well. Gun owners have earned no moral high ground. They are no more "American" than those who don't own guns. They can occupy a high horse all they want, and pat themselves on the back for their American-ness (same as liberal activists will do the same), but we're all one big family, we just feel differently about certain issues, including gun ownership.

Anti-gunners label people like me “gun nuts” even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn’t define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish — including the very same ones anti-gunners do too — like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Internet trolls and the minority anti-gun zealots excepted, nobody's going to call you a gun nut unless you act like one. Supporting gun ownership does not qualify as gun-nuttery on its own, no matter how many straw men one chooses to set up and knock down.

No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don’t understand guns, they don’t understand crime, they don’t understand American history and traditions, they don’t understand gun owners and don’t care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they’ve got no clue about.

So your precious traditions aren't shared unanimously, rub some dirt on it and get back in the game, captain. Conservatives label liberals all sorts of pejorative names, attribute awfulness to them that they haven't earned, same as you're whining about here. I do wish you could find a time machine to take you back to 1951, I think all involved would be happier that way.

And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years — roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal!Cry me a river. Also, that's a baseless assertion, to assume that those who wish to see some degree of gun control aren't civil stewards, don't volunteer, don't work for their communities, etc. If you're a pariah, you might look at your own behavior and outlook. Reasonable people would not assign you pariah status based on the fact that you own a gun. And why worry about unreasonable people? They'll always exist, and they'll exist outside of reasonable discourse. The fact that you've given up on that says as much about you as it does the seemingly hopeless stalemate that you see on this issue.

An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV — or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree —

Anti-education too? Okay.

and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we’re just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what’s best for America.

Did we just slip into "Liberal tyrant alert" here? Do you post on infowars.com?

You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.

Nice melodramatic hyperbole. And the least savory among gun owners who will take up arms in opposition to the law of the land for their own version of "freedom" wouldn't be the least bit responsible for that "civil war" either, right? But threatening an uprising if things don't go your way down the road is a pretty level-headed thing to do...

Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing — an argument often used against us pro-gunners — but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible.

And why would the military need to take action, unless laws were broken?

And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn’t beat their swords into plowshares.

What the hell does that even mean?

-

So this guy says we must mend fences, but basically spent a few thousand words ennumerating how little trust he has for the tiny minority that wants to ban all guns. What a nonproductive exercise. Almost as non-productive as my response LOL, but I couldn't let it go.

No "side" has the monopoly on what is right or what is true. Self-righteousness only deepens the divide, and his preening essay is part of the problem, not the solution.

Why don't you intelligent folk go do some good, and lobby your opinions where there are people who will really be able to make a difference. That ain't here.

Some of us do lobby for the causes we care for in our real lives. Whether that makes a real difference remains to be seen. As far as Lush goes, this section of the forum actually is the place where us lot share such 'voices'. Sorry to see that it frustrates you so.

Although this one for me really makes his entire bloody argument flawed.

Quote:

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they’re a bigger problem than they really are.

Does he really expect to be taken seriously when he's saying that school shootings is a problem, but it's not really THAT big of a problem. Kids shooting kids at school isn't really that big of a problem, or not as big as media make it out to be?

Kids are being shot dead at school or injured for life, not to mention the trauma of it, and it's not as big of a problem as people make it out to be.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go make a post about how rape is something people should just get over, because it's "not that big of a problem"...."It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

Joined: 10/19/2009Posts: 5,850Location: Right here on Lush Stories..., United States

Her Royal Bomb Tossing Spriteness wrote:

so, is the point of this that bombs should be legal as long as they're not used to blow people up? go ahead, you can have all the bombs you want, just make sure you use them at the bomb range or for hunting, not for blowing limbs off of people at marathons, etc.

Is there a bomb range in your neighborhood? I think that would be pretty darn cool...I think they should serve alcohol as well, just for the fun of it...

Speaking of...I know how we can get both sides to come to the table...serve plenty of barbeque and free drinks...I know I'd show up anyway...and I don't even care which side of the table I sit on...

quite honestly, after reading the entire editorial, what i got out of it was: gun owner's don't trust anti-gun people because they're: and then a list that could be diluted down into a series of adjectives - naive, stupid, liars, uneducated, uninformed, deceitful, untrustworthy, stubborn, rude, etc. how this is supposed to bring me as someone on the "anti-gun" side to the table, i have no idea.

this particularly made me roll my eyes:

Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal — just like killing people with guns is illegal too.

so, is the point of this that bombs should be legal as long as they're not used to blow people up? go ahead, you can have all the bombs you want, just make sure you use them at the bomb range or for hunting, not for blowing limbs off of people at marathons, etc.

Actually, I looked into this briefly to answer this post. For $100, you can get a license to purchase explosives, good for three years. You have to undergo a background check, but all they're really looking for is dis-qualifiers. Have you ever been in prison, have you been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces... things like that. If you can pass the background check to purchase a firearm, you can pass the background check to purchase explosives.

So the reality is, sure. It's legal to buy the explosives, but illegal to use them to cause harm. Isn't that a comforting thought?

God, but that's funny. Of _course_ I see Mr. Snell's point of view. And yours. Do I see them as reasonable? Not in the slightest. Can you not see how Snell (and by extension you for holding him up as an an example) engages in exactly the stereotyping he's attempting to condemn? I suspect not, and that is the core of why discussion of this subject with you in particular will never go anywhere.

So this guy says we must mend fences, but basically spent a few thousand words ennumerating how little trust he has for the tiny minority that wants to ban all guns. What a nonproductive exercise. Almost as non-productive as my response LOL, but I couldn't let it go.

No "side" has the monopoly on what is right or what is true. Self-righteousness only deepens the divide, and his preening essay is part of the problem, not the solution.[/color]

But what you're not seeing is that the author really believes this. It's his opinion, and he has every right to it, even as you have the right to say that gun ownership is not for you. And he's not alone. I agree with most of his bullet points. I do my very best to try and see things from your point of view. You have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe, and I don't have the right to call you names because of it, or threaten you because of it. And most gun enthusiasts I hang out with feel the same way. That's called 'freedom", and it's what we believe in.

You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."

You're all hypocrites.

You're all for peaceful coexistence, except for people like me. You're all for freedom, except for people like me. Freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom from persecution... except for people like me.

Me, I deserve to be shot. At least that's what I take away from all these threads. And nobody has ever posted any different.

I believe in live and let live, but I should be shot. I believe in protecting the weak, and punishing the criminal, but I should be shot. I'm one of those who people called on in time of need, I carried a gun to protect the general public, but I should be shot. I'm the last person on Earth that is any threat to any law-abiding citizen, no matter if I own a hand gun, a rifle, an automatic weapon, or a fully-armed attack helicopter. But I should be shot.

And it's the gun owner's fault that there's no peaceful dialog going on about this subject.

This is not a contest. It's an attempt to see if even one of you can actually try to see someone else's point of view. And so far, you're all failing. I'm very disappointed in you all.

Read LadyX's post. She did concede some of the points had merit. To me, that's clearly seeing someone else's viewpoint. On the other hand, if you seriously saw this essay as a balanced take on the situation, maybe you need to look in the mirror when claiming someone is not trying to see someone else's view.

How exactly did you expect an essay which continuously and repeatedly brands the opposing viewpoint as unworthy of trust, to aid in anyone being more likely to see the other side?

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't just another attempt by you to troll those who want stricter gun laws.

Read LadyX's post. She did concede some of the points had merit. To me, that's clearly seeing someone else's viewpoint. On the other hand, if you seriously saw this essay as a balanced take on the situation, maybe you need to look in the mirror when claiming someone is not trying to see someone else's view.

How exactly did you expect an essay which continuously and repeatedly brands the opposing viewpoint as unworthy of trust, to aid in anyone being more likely to see the other side?

I'm having a hard time believing this isn't just another attempt by you to troll those who want stricter gun laws.

You're free to believe that if you wish. As I said, I believe in most of what Snell wrote. I'm trying to expose the posters here to the idea that there are other viewpoints than theirs. I believe I'm failing, but at least I'm trying to bridge some part of the divide between "them" and "us".

You're all for peaceful coexistence, except for people like me. You're all for freedom, except for people like me. Freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom from persecution... except for people like me.

Me, I deserve to be shot. At least that's what I take away from all these threads. And nobody has ever posted any different.

I believe in live and let live, but I should be shot. I believe in protecting the weak, and punishing the criminal, but I should be shot. I'm one of those who people called on in time of need, I carried a gun to protect the general public, but I should be shot. I'm the last person on Earth that is any threat to any law-abiding citizen, no matter if I own a hand gun, a rifle, an automatic weapon, or a fully-armed attack helicopter. But I should be shot.

And it's the gun owner's fault that there's no peaceful dialog going on about this subject.

If that's not hypocrisy...

No you don't need to be shot. You need about a fifth worth of shots. Call your poison, I'll drink with you and we can shoot the shit (not literally).

But put some fucking shorts or something on.

You and I both could probably stand to relax and chill out. I'm sure you have your good points, and I'm sure after about 7 shots, I could find them.

Wild Turkey 101 for me.

*you can even bring your handgun(s)...but give 'em to Xuani for safekeeping while we're boozing up.Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.